Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend about the fact that gangsterism and remnants of paramilitary activity among loyalist groups including the UDA are still unacceptable. The IMC report says that, although it is also significant that the IMC report says that the leaderships of both the UDA and the UVF are seeking to move their organisations away from that dark and violence-strewn past. It is important that loyalism moves into the mainstream, otherwise it will get left behind. The last thing that the loyalist community needs is to be further isolated, because there are those within it who cling to the past. I am clear that the leadership of both the UVF and the UDA want to move their communities into a better future to follow the transformation of the political and security situation in Northern Ireland, but there are still elements that do not. Finally, in respect of the Ulster Political Research Group funding, there was a trial period which showed that its leaderships were delivering on what had been promised. That is why we extended it. It is part of the transformation that we seek and have successfully delivered in Northern Ireland in the recent period.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, may I say that the supplementaries are getting very long.

David Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for his support of the alley-gating scheme. An evaluation has been undertaken, and the Government have contributed more than £500,000 towards the implementation of 180 new alley-gates across alleys in Northern Ireland. Those have had a positive effect on crime prevention, and, in conjunction with the Executive, we will examine how to take the scheme forward in due course. The evaluation will report in the summer, and I am confident that it will show great success for the alley-gating scheme in both reducing crime and, more significantly, fear of crime. I hope that we will look positively at developing the scheme once the evaluation is complete.

Tony Blair: Let us nail down the issue of 80 per cent, 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. I am sure that we would all like to give everyone 100 per cent. of what they want all the time, but it has to be paid for. Even with a payment of £8 billion, we can only afford as much as 80 per cent. We are prepared to look at any measures, and we have looked at the Treasury loan idea. Having looked at it, we do not think that it is a suitable or correct way to try to provide that help. In the end, it all has to be paid back. It is like the right hon. Gentleman's policy on unclaimed assets. We are happy to look at the issue and in the next few months we will report on it, but I cannot make promises to people on the basis of some unspecified Treasury loan that would have to be paid back or the idea that there is a pot of gold lying about in bank accounts, building society accounts or pension fund accounts that we can lift up and give to people. Life does not work like that.

David Cameron: I do not think that the Prime Minister understands the point. Many of those people have reached retirement age. Some of them, such as my constituent John Brookes—who is 67, has leukaemia and paid into a company pension scheme for 40 years—are desperately in need of the money. Given that the Government have said that he will get 80 per cent. of his money anyway, why not use a Treasury loan and start the payments now?

Tony Blair: Having defeated the Conservative party three times at successive general election, I think that it is probably the hon. Gentleman who should be expressing his greatest regret, not me.

Tony Blair: That is not exactly my recollection, actually. I recall that when we came into power, after the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been Home Secretary, the average time that an asylum claim took was 20 months and the backlog was 60,000. There had been a number of category A escapes from prison. Although not under him, to be fair, but under the Conservative Government, crime had doubled, so I think that I prefer our experience to his.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Prime Minister will recall that DAC Peter Clarke's speech included a reference to the leaks leading to a damaging lack of trust in intelligence. What impact does he think that the unfounded allegation made by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—that they might be the responsibility of Ministers or civil servants—will have on trust in intelligence?

Tom Harris: I beg to move,
	That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed—
	(1) that it have power to consider—
	(a) the provision of a station at Woolwich, in the London Borough of Greenwich;
	(b) realignment of the running tunnels at or in the vicinity of the proposed Woolwich Station;
	(c) works associated with the realignment mentioned in paragraph (b) above:
	and, if it thinks fit, to make amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes;
	(2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed is empowered by paragraph (1) above to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if—
	(a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period ends on a day on which the House does not sit, not later than the fifth day on which the House next sits, and
	(b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
	(3) that, in their application to Amendments of which the first newspaper notice is published after the date of this Instruction, paragraph 2(a) of Instruction (No. 2) [12th January 2006] and paragraph 2(a) of Instruction (No. 4) [31st October 2006] shall have effect as if for the words from "that period" to the end there were substituted "ends on a day on which the House does not sit, not later than the fifth day on which the House next sits".
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
	The House will recall a debate on Crossrail on 31 October last year about a set of additional provisions. During that debate, several Members raised concerns about the lack of a station at Woolwich. Despite the strongly expressed view of the Select Committee that such a provision should be added to the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained then that the cost of a station to the public purse at £186 million was too high to justify. Given that strength of feeling, however, my right hon. Friend agreed to let Cross London Rail Links Ltd undertake further work to see whether there was a way significantly to reduce the cost.
	Much has happened since then, and today's motion will facilitate a Crossrail station at Woolwich. It will enable the Crossrail Bill Select Committee to consider an additional provision for such a station. I have placed copies of the instruction on the additional provision and an explanatory memorandum in the Vote Office. I will briefly remind the House of the position that we have now reached, which was set out in a statement by my right hon. Friend on 22 March.
	There have been calls for the Government to include a station at Woolwich since the Bill was introduced in February 2005. Ministers resisted them for one simple reason—affordability. Although Crossrail will deliver huge benefits, the scale of the investment is substantial and presents a huge funding challenge. The addition of a station was simply not justifiable. Following the debate in October, however, a period of intense activity has resulted in important changes, which have been key in unlocking the issue of Woolwich. The Department for Transport and Cross London Rail Links Ltd have been working closely with the London borough of Greenwich and with Berkeley Homes Ltd, which has extensive development proposals for land that it owns in and around the area where the station would be built. The involvement of Berkeley Homes, in particular, has made a huge difference.
	As a result of that engagement between the parties, proposals have emerged for constructing a station that could address the key issue of affordability. As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement in March, an important development has been Greenwich council's recent proposal to revise its policies and plans so as to allow for higher density development in the light of the opportunity to have a station at Woolwich. That in turn prompted Berkeley Homes to offer a means of enabling a station to be built without adding to the cost of Crossrail.
	Those new circumstances allowed us to take a fresh look at the issue. As my right hon. Friend announced in March, the Department has reached an agreement in principle with Berkeley Homes, under which Berkeley Homes will build the basic box structure of a station underneath its own development at its own risk. The Government will make a contribution of £28 million, which is equivalent to the cost of the works that the project was already expecting to incur in that area—principally the cost of a ventilation shaft and a short section of tunnel. My officials are working with Berkeley Homes to turn that outline agreement into a binding contract.
	Clearly, we would all wish to see the completion of a station, and we will be discussing the best way to achieve that with Berkeley Homes and the London borough of Greenwich, given the important role that they will play in making a deal on the terms of an agreement for fitting out the station work. I want to make it clear, however, that a key requirement of any deal is that sufficient funding contributions are received from developers and businesses that stand to benefit from a Crossrail station at Woolwich, such that the station can be fitted out at no extra cost to the public purse. All parties fully understand that. It means that we are now in a fundamentally different position in terms of a Crossrail station at Woolwich compared with where we were in October last year.
	The initial agreement is excellent news, and on that basis the Government are content to bring forward an additional provision to obtain the powers for building a station. The hybrid Bill process has worked well to ensure that the issue of a station at Woolwich was properly considered. The Select Committee felt deeply about the merits of a station at Woolwich, and this achievement meets the Committee's—and the Government's—objective of not adding to the cost of the project. I believe that the deal we have struck would not have been possible if the Government and the supporters of Woolwich had not engaged in vigorous debate. It is important to recognise the part played by those who have argued for a station in changing the landscape.
	I would like to express my sincere thanks, and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to the Select Committee. The Committee is at last coming to the end of its work, but we must remember that Committee members have been sitting since January 2006. During that time, they have been presented with more than 450 petitions and have considered a huge range of issues, under the successful chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). They are carrying out an exceptionally difficult job, and pursuing it with rigour. Their tremendous efforts in carefully scrutinising the Crossrail Bill are helping to ensure that the Bill continues to make good progress. The Committee has now considered all the petitions received to date. I am extremely grateful for its dedication to this task and I look forward to receiving its final report.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I would also like to add my thanks to the officials in the Department for Transport and at Cross London Rail Links Ltd for their tremendous efforts.
	Today, we are debating a motion to allow the Committee to consider petitions against the additional provision to the Crossrail Bill that the Government intend to bring forward. Notwithstanding the Committee's support for the principle of a station at Woolwich, its role will be to consider petitions against the additional provision, which I have no doubt that it will do with its usual dedication and commitment—especially now that it can see the light at the end of the tunnel.
	I want to emphasise that the decision to bring forward an additional provision is not a commitment to build a station at Woolwich—it is a commitment to work towards a financial deal that would enable us to have a station at no additional cost to the Crossrail project. However, if Parliament approves the additional provision, and the deal can be finalised successfully, Woolwich station will be just as much part of the Crossrail project as the other new sub-level stations contained in the Bill.
	There is widespread agreement that Crossrail is a project of immense importance to the United Kingdom, and one whose momentum continues to build. The Government recognise that there are transport capacity challenges in London and the south-east, and we are working hard to address them. Connecting the economic centres in the capital with areas outside London will support local and national economic development and regeneration, benefiting the whole country. Both sides of the House have given strong support to Crossrail throughout the passage of the Bill, and I am grateful for that. The project would be enhanced by a station at Woolwich, provided that that can be achieved without adding to the public funding requirement. I commend the motion to the House.

Nick Raynsford: May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, notably my chairmanship of the Construction Industry Council?
	I welcome today's debate and the new instruction to the Select Committee in respect of Woolwich. Before I talk about Woolwich, however, I would like to say how crucial the Crossrail scheme is to London. Without it, there would be a serious risk of London's transport and traffic systems grinding to a halt within 20 years, resulting in huge economic disbenefits to our capital and to the UK economy. It is in all our interests to secure this hugely important new transport scheme, as it is vital to the ongoing economic success of our capital city.
	Woolwich was originally part of the Crossrail scheme and there is an overwhelmingly strong case for having a station there. Woolwich is a major transport interchange, served not only by South East Trains but by about 190 buses every hour. It is shortly to be linked to the docklands light railway network, and it will also benefit from the introduction of the waterfront transit. It has a hugely important role as a link to the Thames Gateway, as well as giving many people in south-east London the opportunity to access the rapidly expanding labour market at Canary Wharf.
	There are, therefore, obvious and substantial transport benefits to be gained from having a station at Woolwich. There will also be huge regeneration benefits. Woolwich as a town has a proud history, but over the past 30 or 40 years it has suffered a difficult period of economic decline following the closure of the traditional heavy industries that used to be the bedrock of the local economy. At the end of the first world war, the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich provided employment for some 80,000 people. By the 1980s, however, not a single person was working on the site; it had closed. A lot of the heavy industry along the waterfront had suffered a similar decline, and Woolwich faced serious problems of unemployment, poverty and disadvantage.
	After that difficult period we are beginning to see some signs of hope for the future. There is new investment in the Royal Arsenal, as a result of which people are coming to live in that attractive and historic location. There is new commercial investment in Woolwich town centre and new retail developments, but there is still a very long way to go. A Crossrail station giving rapid connections to Canary Wharf, the City of London, the west end and Heathrow would make a substantial difference and would ensure that the regeneration takes root and the long-term prosperity of Woolwich is secured.
	There is an overwhelmingly strong case for a Crossrail station at Woolwich, and it was a bitter disappointment to all of us who are concerned about the future of Woolwich when the Government decided about two years ago, as a cost-cutting measure, to drop the Woolwich station from the Crossrail scheme. If ever there was a case of a false economy—of penny wise, pound foolish thinking—this was it, as all the figures show that Woolwich station will be a substantial positive contributor to the Crossrail scheme, with an exceptionally favourable cost-benefit ratio—incidentally, a much better cost-benefit ratio than the scheme overall.
	Not surprisingly, given the setback, a forceful campaign rapidly gathered momentum in Woolwich to reverse the decision. We have form in south-east London on such campaigns. Fifteen years ago, it required a vigorous campaign to ensure that the Jubilee line had a station at North Greenwich. Twelve years ago, we were again in campaigning mode when an equally short-sighted penny-pinching economy was proposed by the Government of the day, and the station at Cutty Sark on the docklands light railway was dropped for cost-cutting purposes. Our campaigns in both cases succeeded. As a consequence, stations were built at North Greenwich and Cutty Sark, and no one now would dream of envisaging either of those lines, the Jubilee line or the docklands light railway, without those stations, which are hugely successful, attract large numbers of passengers and generate substantial revenue.
	Given that background, we were pretty confident that we could demonstrate similar benefits at Woolwich and, as I said, our campaign rapidly gained strength. I pay tribute to the many people who contributed to the campaign, including the London borough of Greenwich, the Bexley and Greenwich chamber of commerce, South London Business, and thousands of individuals and organisations who came together in what was a truly popular movement to ensure justice for Woolwich and a station that would bring transport and economic benefits.
	The evidence, which was substantial, was presented to the Select Committee considering the Crossrail Bill. The Committee came to Woolwich to examine the issue at close hand and it was clearly convinced of the huge potential benefits of a station at Woolwich. I put on the record my sincere appreciation of the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and all his colleagues on the Select Committee. They were unanimous across party on the issue. They saw the benefits of the Woolwich station and they clearly recommended last summer that the station should be reincorporated in the scheme. They had looked hard at the evidence and they had no doubt that Woolwich was necessary and represented very good value for money. All of us living and working in and around Woolwich are grateful to members of the Select Committee for their unswerving commitment to the outcome that we are ratifying today.
	I do not intend to linger on the process, which was rather protracted, that has filled the eight months or so since the Select Committee recommendation on Woolwich. Suffice it to say that we have now reached the point where common sense has prevailed and the Woolwich station is to be incorporated in the scheme. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for confirming the Government's agreement to that.
	Through those discussions in the intervening period, which at times were difficult, the key element was the creativity that went into securing a cost-effective solution. Because of the obvious transport and regeneration benefits of the Woolwich station, there was always an opportunity to capture a significant amount of the development gain that would accrue from the construction of a station at Woolwich to offset the construction costs. I well remember making the point to the Secretary of State and his officials in the aftermath of the Select Committee's recommendation last summer.
	At the time, transport officials were somewhat dismissive on this count, but I am pleased that they have now recognised the real benefits that can be achieved through partnership and intelligent planning. As a result of the creative work that has gone in over the past six months, particularly from the London borough of Greenwich, Berkeley Homes and their advisers, together with the Crossrail team, to whom I also pay tribute, we have been able to reduce dramatically the construction costs of the station and develop a truly win-win solution. The station will be built by Berkeley Homes as part of their new development at the Royal Arsenal. The additional fare box revenues that will accrue from the station, together with the development gain from increased land values, means that the likely outcome, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, is a station imposing no additional net costs on the Government.
	We should all be able to welcome today's instruction to the Select Committee and the additional provision adding Woolwich to the Crossrail Bill, which is already out for consultation. Of course, there is still a lot more work to be done before the project is brought to a successful conclusion. The Select Committee will have to complete its consideration of petitions. Hopefully, few difficulties will be raised by the realignment of the route and the incorporation of the Woolwich station. Although I know that this has added yet more time to that which the Committee members have already had to give to the Bill, I hope that they will take comfort from the knowledge that their determined advocacy of Woolwich has brought this important improvement to the Bill. Not all Committees can look back on their labours and see such tangible results.
	After it completes its Select Committee passage, the Bill still has to go through its remaining stages in this House and then the other place. I hope that will prove a swifter process than the process to date. That was partly inevitable because the Select Committee had to deal with an enormous amount of complex and, in some cases, extremely controversial material, and the fruits of its labour will make it easier for others to proceed more quickly.
	When it completes its passage, the Bill cannot come into effect until the Government have finalised a funding package for the whole Crossrail scheme. No one should minimise the task involved in that, given the scale of investment needed, but we can begin to see the main architecture of the funding package. The outstanding work carried out over the past year or two by Doug Oakervee, Keith Berryman and their team at Crossrail, in driving down costs and ensuring that the scheme is a demonstrably cost-effective and fundable project, has helped to make what once seemed a hugely problematic funding task look much more achievable.
	As I said at the outset, Crossrail is essential to London's future transport network and economic success, and it is vital that the remaining legislative and financial hurdles that it faces are successfully overcome. With the Woolwich station once again properly incorporated in the scheme, bringing huge benefits to south-east London and the Thames gateway, the scheme has my unqualified support. I look forward to us moving on over the coming months from its long gestation period into the construction and implementation phase, which I, for one, anticipate with great enthusiasm.

Clive Efford: This afternoon is a time for congratulations, and I add my appreciation of the work done by the Select Committee, not least its Chairman, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). From day one when he received the evidence, it has been clear to me that he appreciated the need for a station in Woolwich, its regeneration, the economic aspects, and its impact on the wider area in the borough of Greenwich, where my constituency is situated.
	It is a shame that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here to bask in the glory of having had the vision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said, to see through the arguments against the station at Woolwich and appreciate its value in enhancing the Crossrail scheme overall. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport has always been a secret fan, too, of a Crossrail station at Woolwich.
	The achievement of a new instruction to the Select Committee is a credit to all sections of the community in Greenwich, including not just the elected Members of Parliament and councillors but businesses. The chairman of the chamber of commerce, Steve Nelson, a constituent of mine, urged members of the business community in Greenwich to recognise the importance of the issue and to put their weight behind the case for a station at Woolwich. We also cannot ignore the input of Berkeley Homes, and the vision that it showed in incorporating the scheme into its regeneration of the Royal Arsenal. Without that open-minded and creative thinking, we might not have achieved the new instruction to the Committee. All sections of the community have made tremendous effort, not least the public, who always expressed their support for the scheme and appreciated the contribution that it would make to transport links in the area.
	As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford)—who also deserves congratulations on his efforts to argue for the station in his constituency—the score is 3-0 to us in terms of major infrastructure projects, although we do not want to rub it in. Initially, we were denied the opportunity of a station on the Jubilee line, but the then council, of which I was a member, argued forcefully to the Government of the day that it would be ridiculous to bypass that regeneration area—as it was then—next to what was to become the millennium dome, and not build a station. Similarly, the community came together and argued overwhelmingly that building the docklands light railway and bypassing Cutty Sark gardens next to the Cutty Sark clipper, one of the most popular destinations outside central London, was a serious error, and that a station should be included. On Crossrail, the community has again come together, made a forceful argument, and achieved the new instruction to the Select Committee.
	In Woolwich, which is not in my constituency, although it is in the borough in which my constituency lies, transport is a key issue, as it is for many communities across the capital. Woolwich, however, is a strategic hub for people in that part of London. I cannot think of any other part of London where a major infrastructure project would be proposed—including a length of tunnel from Custom House to Plumstead, where it emerges before arriving at Abbey Wood—and a strategic and important town centre be bypassed and have no station. Common sense has prevailed today, and Woolwich is now to be included.

Tom Harris: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	This has been a well-informed and good-natured debate, and I am grateful to Members for what they have said. Support for Crossrail clearly remains strong and spans the House.
	Given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) can justifiably claim to have run a very successful and effective campaign for a station at Woolwich, he managed very efficiently to contain his joy at his success. Understandably and correctly, he referred again to what he had said on other occasions about levels of deprivation in Woolwich. I do not intend to rehearse yet again the constitutional arguments about what a Select Committee can and cannot recommend to the Government during the passage of a hybrid Bill and what the Government can and cannot say in response. I shall confine myself to paraphrasing Lady Thatcher and saying "Just rejoice".
	The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) made some supportive comments, for which I was grateful. I was also grateful to him for telling us that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is to be married on Saturday. I hope that he will convey my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not suppose that what he said constituted an invitation.
	The Government have always recognised that a station at Woolwich would have regenerative benefits for the Woolwich economy. The argument against it that was advanced in October did not deny that; it was simply about affordability. While a Woolwich station would of course be beneficial to the Woolwich economy, it was not seen as essential to the Crossrail project as a whole.
	The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked about the timetable for the Standing Committee. The Government hope that, provided that the Select Committee concludes its business before the summer recess, the Bill will be committed in October, with Third Reading and remaining stages in the House in November. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the start of construction. That will depend on an announcement on funding, about which I shall say more later. He asked about the elements of the funding; it is in the public domain that the balance from central Government will be included, as well as a possible levy on business rates in London for businesses that will benefit from the Crossrail project. I hope to say more about that later as well. He asked for an estimate of the expense. An estimate of the expense involved in this element of the scheme, along with information about additional provision, will be deposited at the start of the consultation period in mid-May.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked about the cost of the project. He may have been referring to newspaper reports that appeared earlier in the week. I can tell him that a value management exercise has reduced the cost—at 2002 prices, the standard for all Crossrail costings—from £7.8 billion to £6.2 billion, including a contingency element of about 35 per cent. At today's prices, that is between £15 billion and £16 billion.

Ian Gibson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am delighted to have this opportunity to introduce the Second Reading of the Bill and I welcome all the other right hon. and hon. Members to the Chamber this afternoon. It may feel like Sleepy Hollow, but this is an important issue for many people, not only in Norfolk and Suffolk, but across the country and internationally. The Bill has been gestating for some time and will probably go on for some time to come, until we get it right, because that is how determined we are to take it forward.
	I wish to thank my colleagues from Norfolk and Suffolk who are in their places to represent their constituents with a personal interest in the Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) is not here, but he has suffered a family bereavement. I hope that the Bill will progress, to give him the opportunity to make some of the points about which he feels passionately. I wish the hon. Gentleman and his family well in their current situation.
	The broads, which stretch across Norfolk and Suffolk, are the UK's most important wetland. They are a unique and internationally important landscape, with a designation equivalent to that of a national park. I shall say more about why they are not a national park in name, although they share many other functions with national parks. In the 1950s the origin of the shallow reed-fringed lakes—or lochs, for the Scottish—was discovered, and they can be seen as the most extensive archaeological sites in Britain, including mediaeval peat diggings from a time when Norfolk was the economic powerhouse of the country. They were subsequently flooded, which gave later generations the network of rivers and broads in which so many people delight today.
	The broads are known for their big open skies, the drainage mills dotted across the landscape and the reed beds with bittern and swallowtail butterflies. They are where Nelson learned to sail, and where the concept of a boating holiday was invented. The railways are still there. Arthur Ransome made holidays on the broads popular, and hon. Members will recall the distinctive railway posters of young people disporting themselves on sailing boats. The value of tourism in the area now is estimated at £140 million a year.
	A famous local naturalist, Ted Ellis, called the broads
	"a breathing space for the cure of souls".
	That is a majestic phrase, and the area is indeed one of those very special places that help us to recharge our batteries and cope with our modern busy lives—and the odd MP does visit. In the 1947 Hobhouse report, the broads were listed as one of the areas proposed as a national park. Ten of the 12 proposed areas have been established as national parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and the other area, the south downs, is under serious consideration. However, the national park for the broads did not proceed, because of the multiplicity of authorities with responsibilities for the planning and management of the area, strong commercial pressures and the anticipated high costs of management. It was recognised that it needed a special solution.
	In the intervening years the broads came under huge pressure, water quality declined and there was a real concern that many of the special qualities of the area would be lost. We now know that a combination of factors were in operation, including phosphates from sewage treatment works, bank erosion by boats, drainage of the precious grazing marshes for arable crops, and nitrates from agricultural run-off.
	In 1977, the Countryside Commission brought matters to a head by announcing that the area met the criteria for designation as a national park and seeking views on the best way forward. The opinion that a standard national park was not the best solution remained widely held, and negotiation with local interests led to the establishment of a joint local authority committee in 1978, involving county and district councils, the water authority, the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners and other interest groups.
	A decade or so later, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 was passed, and the Broads Authority came into permanent existence the following year to provide governance of the whole system. Much has been achieved in the past 20 years, and the decline has not only been arrested but reversed. Plants that have not been seen for 50 years have flowered, and the pioneering Halvergate grazing marshes scheme led to the environmentally sensitive areas programme and modern support for environmentally sensitive farming. A bursary scheme supported by the heritage lottery fund is training a new generation of reed and sedge cutters and millwrights. Tourism in the broads, which faces increasing competition from cheaper overseas holidays, is moving forward by improving the quality of the product while recognising and supporting the special qualities of the broads. To conclude my introduction, at a meeting that I attended, the chairman of the East of England development agency expressed an ambition to make the broads like the Florida keys. Having visited the keys I shied away from that, and I said that the broads had a magic that, thank goodness, the Florida keys could neither get their hands on nor improve on.
	There will be debate, I hope, in Committee and in another place about the Broads Authority, which is a special statutory authority established under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act, with a general duty to manage the broads for three major purposes: conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the broads, as I have described; promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the broads by the public; and protecting the interests of navigation. The first purposes are identical to those given to the national parks, and it is the third additional purpose that makes the Broads Authority's responsibilities special. It is, as it were, a national park plus. The authority is the third largest navigation authority after British Waterways and the Environment Agency. I must apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has been dealing with water problems all day, last night, the day before and so on. Water is suddenly at the top of the agenda, and inland water problems have risen high in the country's political life.
	British Waterways and the Environment Agency work with the authority through the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities—AINA—and the national park authorities. The authority is a harbour authority, too, and its navigation responsibilities, which are unique, include public safety provisions for navigation and for boats, and maintenance of the navigation system, including moorings, dredgings and markings. The authority is a local planning authority for the broads, with responsibility for planning, conservation, development control and enforcement. There are some problems, and we will take them on board, as people have quite rightly complained about the provisions of the Act, the number of members, who they are and so on.
	In 1988 the authority comprised 35 members, but after four years of discussion and consultation, agreement was reached to reduce that to a more appropriate number. In June 2005 the authority comprised 21 members, who are charged with taking account of national and local interests while reflecting the authority's particular duties and responsibilities. Ten members are appointed by the Secretary of State, nine by the eight local authorities in the area, and two by the authority from its statutory navigation committee. I shall talk later about the other organisations that should have an input.
	The locally appointed members are councillors who have been elected locally and are an important link with the community, and the Bill does not include any proposals to change the overall membership. The authority is keen to engage with a wider group of stakeholders and local people, and it established a broads forum, which has been emulated by other members of the national park family. It is keen to continue to develop its role, and has recently included parish council representation. It has met the Norfolk Association of Parish and Town Councils—I expect that many of my colleagues in the Chamber have done so, too—and it has undertaken to work more closely with them to strengthen the relationship with parish councils in the broads area.

Ian Gibson: A priori, there is no reason why the Bill could not be so amended, but the argument has to do with the role of the parish councils in the area covered by the Broads Authority. The authority performs some of the work of the parish councils, whose involvement in initiatives is therefore limited. However, that arrangement does not have to last for ever, and we can discuss the arguments for and against parish councils' representation on the Broads Authority. At present the parish councils have a consultative input into the broads forum, but I am sure that we will examine later in Committee how many and which organisations should be represented on the authority.
	I know, for example, that some people think that other bodies need to be included. In my opinion, however, the Broads Authority has been open to debate about these matters and I am not aware of any internecine warfare—indeed, it has been prepared to open its doors in order to strengthen the work that it does. Obviously, parish councils have a role in determining planning applications, and that might provide a model for wider consultation. Moreover, we must also bear it in mind as we make progress with the Bill that parish councils may have a part to play in organisations other than the Broads Authority.
	The Broads Authority's executive area is tightly drawn around the flood plains and lower reaches of three main rivers—the Bure, the Yare and the Waveney. Only 5,000 people live in the area covered by the authority, but it abuts the urban areas of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and it includes the river Wensum, which takes it right into the middle of Norwich. Most of the land in the broads is privately owned, and large tracts belong to wildlife trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the National Trust. The responsibility for, and involvement in, the area is therefore widely spread.
	The navigation area under the authority's responsibility is defined in the 1988 Act. It includes all the stretches of the rivers Bure, Yare and Waveney, and their tributaries, that were in use for navigation by virtue of any public right of navigation at the time of the passing of that Act. It excludes the river Haven, which remains under the jurisdiction of the Great Yarmouth port authority. Breydon Water and the passage under the bridges over the lower Bure is the most dangerous part of the broads navigation, and visiting craft regularly have to be helped off the mud there and warned about the bridges. The Broads Authority patrols the area, and by agreement with the Great Yarmouth port authority, the Bill provides for responsibility for navigation in those waters to be transferred to the Broads Authority. That is one of the proposals that have emerged from the negotiations in respect of the Bill.
	There are also problems with how the Broads Authority is financed. It has two principal sources of income. There is the national park grant, which accounts for two-thirds of its resources and income from toll payers, amounting to roughly £2 million in the current year. The previous Minister with responsibility for these matters recognised that the formula for allocating national park grant did not reflect the additional costs of managing a water-based protected area, and he therefore allocated an additional £0.5 million a year over three years. That money has made a huge difference to improving biodiversity, implementing practical safety improvements and increasing the amount of dredging.
	I appreciate the financing problems facing the present Minister in respect of British Waterways and other bodies, but I hope that he will be able to build that funding into the authority's core grant in some way. I believe that there is some room for negotiation, however, and I stress that the additional money is very important for the future of the broads. The Broads Authority has achieved a lot in the past 20 years. Ironically, it came through the national parks performance assessment with flying colours. The people on the authority and their supporters are committed to improving the services that it offers.
	People ask why we need a private Bill. I shall not give all the reasons why the broads region is not a national park. The area was missed out when those decisions were made because it was concluded that its allocation of responsibilities did not conform to the Sandford principle.
	Following advice from various sources, it became clear that a private Bill would be the only way forward to tackle the important safety matters that must be addressed. The authority is following the path of many proposals made by British Waterways and the Environment Agency, which have given it a lot of help. The current and previous Ministers responsible in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have also been extremely helpful by ensuring that they and their officials gave good advice and assistance.
	The main purpose of the Bill is to obtain new powers for the authority to improve the safety of those boating on the broads. The need for additional powers has been highlighted by the requirements of the port marine safety code and incidents such as the Breakaway V accident. We are grateful for the fact that there is not a history of a great many accidents on the broads—although we have no idea of how many near misses there have been. However, most people would agree that it is important that public safety be improved. There have been one or two incidents in which someone has drowned, such as that involving Breakaway V, which means that the authority has to take on several general provisions to improve safety on the broads waterways.
	The Bill will give the authority the power to give general directions to all vessels, or particular classes of vessels, and to give directions to designate safe navigation routes. It will give the authority the power to give directions to regulate mooring in its navigational jurisdiction and the towing of vessels. It will allow the authority to give special directions to vessels in one-off cases and to designate the construction and equipment standards for vessels.
	The authority's intention, which is embodied in a formal legal agreement with national and local boating interests, is to implement the national boat safety scheme, which applies to waterways under the jurisdictions of British Waterways and the Environment Agency. Importantly, the Bill gives the authority the power to introduce compulsory third-party insurance for vessels. It allows the authority to require the licensing of pleasure boats and to regulate water skiing and wakeboarding on the broads better. It also gives the authority the power to deal with overhanging vegetation that causes a hazard.
	I know that people think that regulations can sometimes be stuffy, and that there can be over-regulation. However, the same arguments were made about seat belts in cars—and I do not hear many people arguing against seat belts now, although there was a lot of argument when the seat belts measure was proposed. Who knows how many lives that has saved? A simple little Act made a big difference to public safety. The intention behind the Bill is to improve public safety.
	It seems that there is a public right of navigation and that the public have the right to go where they like, so I understand people's resentment of such a top-heavy management style. Even though I am not sure that that is how things will turn out, that is always what people fear. I realise that when a balance must be struck, we must strike it on the side of public safety, as long as we can make the argument that public safety is being improved. There are statutory and other legal restrictions on the way in which the public right of navigation can be exercised. Harbour authorities, of which the Broads Authority is one, have the benefit of statutory powers to enable them to control the way in which their areas are navigated.
	It is important that the Bill's provisions are reasonable and proportionate, and that they take proper account of individual rights. As legislators, we all know how hard that balance is to strike. I am a member of the Committee considering the Mental Health Bill, so I know that it is difficult to come up with a balanced black-and-white position on some issues—the line is often very wavy. However, it is right that the Bill makes changes, given some of the events that have happened. Although those events have not been major tragic incidents, they are sufficient to make one worried that such an incident could occur. It is our job to protect individuals who use the broads.
	The Bill has come about through consultation exercises and agreements with boating interests. The authority consulted local MPs, Government Departments, the Environment Agency, the National Farmers Union and the Great Yarmouth Port Authority. The groups that have been spoken to include the Royal Yachting Association, the British Marine Federation, the Inland Waterways Association, the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association and the Broads Hire Boat Federation.
	In all cases there is a written agreement about how the measure should operate and the consultation has allowed changes to be made to the original Bill. In a sense, that is a form of contract, so who cares whether it is legally binding? However, it is important to have that piece of paper in case anything goes wrong.

Keith Simpson: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I thank you, as the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, for allowing us to have this short debate this afternoon? My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon)—who sends his apologies for not being here because of a family bereavement—and I objected to the passage of the Bill, not because we wished to block or destroy the Bill, but because we received representations from constituents and other interests that involved having the Bill debated on the Floor of the House. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who introduced the Bill, said, it is important to have complete transparency and to raise some of these issues, not only because they are important to those of us who live in Norfolk and Suffolk, but because the broads have a national and, indeed, international reputation.
	The nature of the Bill has changed from its original draft—something that the hon. Gentleman did not mention. The original Bill was intended to establish the Norfolk and Suffolk broads as a national park. It has evolved into a much more narrowly prescribed Bill to improve safety for people who are boating and to modernise the operations of the Broads Authority, as he mentioned. He quite rightly flagged up, in a very open way, that there has been some public concern and some opposition—certainly to the original draft Bill, which has quite rightly been modified as a result of consultation. Nevertheless, four individuals have petitioned against the Bill, one representative body is lobbying for an amendment, and other local concerns have been expressed.
	It is therefore right and proper to have a debate to enable colleagues on both sides of the House to raise issues and to go for total transparency. Hopefully, some of the issues raised may result in the Bill being modified in Committee or in the other place. The Bill will go into Committee and then go to the other place, where Bishop Graham, the Bishop of Norwich, will introduce it. That will provide further opportunities for debate and amendments.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North emphasised the importance of the broads both locally and nationally. My interest is direct in that the broads cover part of my constituency, which includes the southern border of the Norfolk broads, the rivers Yare, Bure and Waveney, and the magnificent Halvergate marshes. As a consequence of the great parliamentary reaper—I refer, of course, to the Boundary Commission—my current constituency of Mid-Norfolk will be divided and Norfolk will get an extra seat. The majority part of my Mid-Norfolk seat will become the constituency of Broadland, to which I hope my constituents might see fit to return me at a general election in the future. The name is directly associated with the broads.
	The hon. Gentleman quite rightly emphasised that we face the issue of how to achieve a balance between all the competing interests that are involved with the Norfolk and Suffolk broads. The issues include the environment, wildlife, the people who work and live on the broads and in the surrounding areas, and the difficulty of maintaining a transport infrastructure that is able to compete with modern conditions. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and I know only too well the problems with transportation and traffic in the small settlements of Wroxham and Hoveton, where there is a major river crossing. I remind hon. Members that although we are all supportive of public transport and many of us try to use it, in large parts of Norfolk and Suffolk the car is not a luxury but an absolute must for people to get around—to get to work, to hospitals and so on.
	We have to bear in mind that considerations include the protection of endangered species and the maintenance of the broads, which were in serious danger of major deterioration some 20 years ago. A fundamental issue in which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) and I are involved is the dualling of the A47 across the Acle straight; that is still under discussion. The project raises major concerns about the environment and whether it is possible to move drainage ditches, in which there are important species, to enable improvements to the road, which is a lifeline to Great Yarmouth. The improvements would prevent appalling accidents of the kind that have taken place there, in which cars have come off the road and people have drowned, sadly, in the ditches.
	There are major issues involving farming, tourism, boating and sailing. It is reckoned that the holiday boating trade is worth about £146 million and employs some 2,000 people in Norfolk and Suffolk. Interestingly enough, the number of people taking boating holidays has halved in the past 20 years. In addition, we should not forget the threat from the sea. Any change in weather conditions or tides could have a catastrophic effect on the Norfolk coast. In 1953, the sea breached the sea defences along the north Norfolk coast. Many settlements were literally washed away and a number of people were killed. Global warming or the cyclical change in climate, or a repetition of the events of 1953, would result in a considerable part of the constituencies of many Members and friends present today literally disappearing.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North, quickly skated over the origins of the broads, and I can understand why, but it is actually an important subject. It is amazing to think that it was only in 1953 that the botanist Dr. Joyce Lambert came up with what has turned out to be the correct analysis of the origins of the broads. Through her research and the research of others, she proved that the broads are a consequence of peat-diggings in the middle ages that had been filled in with water. That challenged the accepted thesis that the broads were shallow water, and were relics of the great estuary of the Roman times—or, as one historian said, large puddles that were left behind as the sea retreated in the post-Roman period. That raises the important and interesting point that the broads are as much man made as they are influenced, developed and modified by the environment.
	The Broads Authority came into being because of the need for an overall authority to co-ordinate issues to do with navigation, the environment and tourism. My predecessor, Richard Ryder, now Lord Ryder of Wensum, took through the Commons what became the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988. That Act set up the Broads Authority and provided statutory powers, including those relating to navigation. Crucially, the broads had not then been designated a national park, largely because of issues to do with navigation. In a strange way, the broads are a hybrid. I suspect that if one went out into Parliament square and asked 10 people whether they thought that the broads were a national park, nine of the 10 would assume that they were.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is being very balanced in his remarks. He has referred to the difficulty of dealing with the broads as a national park per se because of the navigation interests, and he is grappling with the question of how to get parish representation, which, as he says, has been significant as regards other national parks that do not pose the constitutional challenge that the broads do by their very nature. This may be more of a subject for the Committee, but does he accept that it needs to be approached with care because the wish to involve a parish element needs to be dealt with in a way that does not imbalance the other elements that are represented—for example, the navigation element, which he rightly pointed to as a complicating factor in the whole way in which the Broads Authority is established?

Bob Blizzard: I would not expect anything less from the Broads Authority. That is the way in which it usually works. It must be empowered to take such action, because if a reluctant or unreasonable landlord is involved, the interests of many other people will be adversely affected.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk is right: there was great concern about the ending of the separate financial account for navigation. As I said in an earlier intervention, I am not so worried about that now. It was seen as a necessary procedure to protect navigation interests, but having discussed the matter I can imagine the separate account becoming silo-ed—almost sidelined. I understand that currently more money is spent on navigation than is raised from navigation income. The new format protects that. I am told that the Bill provides for navigation expenditure to be greater than or equal to navigation income, so I do not see how navigation can lose out. Indeed, the Broads Authority might decide to allow more money to be spent on it if the navigation account became part of a set of transparent accounts.
	The key issue affecting the broads today is dredging. The problem of silt is becoming more and more acute, and it is my constituents' main concern about Oulton broad, which is silting up badly. The amount of silt is increasing each year, and the broad is becoming shallower each year. So much of it is affected that boating is being restricted. Dredging is needed not just to enable people to enjoy the broads, but for the well-being of the natural environment of the broad and the sustainable management of its natural beauty and biodiversity.
	We need two assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister. First, we need a statement about funding. As has already been pointed out, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) granted £500,000 a year for three years, which has made a real difference, but the formula allocation for the national park grant ought to reflect the higher costs of managing a water-based protected area with significant navigation, and I think it reasonable to ask for the £500,000 to be taken into the core funding of the Broads Authority area. I realise that there are financial pressures, but unless we can use that money to deal with the dredging problem, we will find it difficult to move forward. Indeed, we may move backwards.
	The second issue does not directly concern finance, but relates to the definition of the dredged material in the context of its disposal. It should be possible to dispose of it locally to avoid incurring enormous, even prohibitive, costs in transporting it over distances. It would seem reasonable to deposit the material in the fields whence it has come, but under the European Union waste framework directive it is classified as waste. It must therefore be disposed of as waste, meeting the requirements of a number of regulations and requiring the establishment of a licensed disposal site. That too would involve considerable and probably prohibitive expense.
	Last year I met representatives of the Broads Authority and a constituent with the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), and we examined the issue in some detail. It was established that this was an unintended consequence of the legislation, and that the framework directive was not intended to catch the dredged material. Indeed, so unintended was the consequence that had the legislation been in place when the Barton broad restoration project was carried out in 2000, the project would not have been possible. The fact that the Barton broad clear water 2000 scheme has been an outstanding environmental success shows how important it is to do something about the regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset agreed to sort it out, and officials at the meeting confirmed that that could be done within the European Union system. However, we are still waiting for that matter to be resolved. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and he helpfully replied last August that revised guidance was being prepared, which I welcome, but he was not able to say when that guidance would be published. Is he able to tell the House today when it will be published? That is of urgent concern, because dredging is the key issue.
	As has been said, the Broads Authority has a difficult job to do. It has to strike the right balance between conserving the natural environment and promoting and allowing public enjoyment. We must never forget that people live and work within the Broads Authority area—in my constituency and those of several other Members—and that they need to be able to carry out their daily lives in a reasonable way. I am concerned by some of the decisions of the planning committee of the Broads Authority. It sometimes seems to have a heavy hand, although at other times it seems to get it right. The new authority must make sure that it strikes the right balance.
	I was one of those who hoped that the name could be changed to "national park". I would have loved to have been able to say, "In our part of the country, we have the Broads national park." We had a vigorous debate about the name when we thought that we were going to have a national park, and we rightly ended up with the proposal to name it the Broads national park. We do not have the "Cumbrian lake district" or "Devon Dartmoor". Everybody knows where the broads are. I am disappointed that we were not able to proceed with the national park name, and to have included that in the Bill. I understand and do not underestimate the difficulties of reconciling certain matters with the Sandford principle. However, one has to remain optimistic, and I hope that we will return to the issue in the future; I hope that we will be able to create a Broads national park some day, because having a Broads national park in the heart of our area would be a great boost for us all.

Barry Gardiner: I congratulate not only the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on his excellent speech but every Member who has participated in the debate. Like the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) for the way in which he has ensured that this important subject has been debated on the Floor of the House and had proper parliamentary scrutiny. The quality of the submissions that we have heard today and the detailed thought that has been put into them have proved him right in ensuring that we could have such a debate today—and, I hope, at a later stage, should we get a fair wind today to take the Bill up to the Committee corridor.
	As the Minister with responsibility for the national parks and the broads, I should explain that the Government support the main aims of the Broads Authority Bill. Our report to the Committee will recommend two changes and highlight some areas in which we think that the Bill might be improved, but I am confident that there should be a satisfactory outcome in Committee, in line with the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has put to the House today.
	The main aims of the Bill are to improve safety on the broads through a series of measures, including the licensing of hire craft and compulsory third-party insurance, as well as making improvements to the way in which the Broads Authority operates. The recent introduction of the boat safety scheme will ensure that vessels are properly maintained, as an MOT does for road vehicles. British Waterways and the Environment Agency already operate this scheme successfully, and I congratulate the Broads Authority on the measures that it is taking to bring the broads into line with other major navigation authorities.
	Compulsory insurance will bring peace of mind to those who boat on the broads, especially those on lower incomes who might otherwise be fearful of having to meet the cost of any damage done to their vessel by uninsured users. DEFRA had considered including the boat safety and insurance provisions in the general directions powers in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, but I am told that time ran out before we were able to draft suitable clauses. It is gratifying that the Broads Authority Bill has provided another opportunity for the House to consider these issues so soon.
	The Broads Authority has considered whether the safety provisions could have been dealt with through byelaws. That would not have been possible with some of them—for example, the introduction of compulsory insurance—and, although the boat safety scheme has now been introduced through byelaws, this is a rather cumbersome way of dealing with changes to the standards, as it requires the byelaws to be amended each time.
	I am conscious that following the authority's extensive consultation on the Bill, there are a few individuals who still consider that the provisions are anti-libertarian and will infringe their civil liberties, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North pointed out, some people still do not like seat belts, despite the number of lives that have been saved since they were introduced. There was a general consensus in the House today that any restrictions on the individual's liberty to navigate when and where he chooses must be reasonable and proportionate. I believe that the Broads Authority's proposals meet that test.
	I fully recognise the extremely difficult role that the Broads Authority has to play in trying to manage expectations from a wide range of people, all of whom think that their particular activity should have precedence over any other. The stark reality is that no one activity has precedence, and I applaud the Broads Authority for the excellent way in which it meets those expectations in general. It is a difficult balancing act to perform, and on the whole, although qualms have been mentioned in the Chamber, the authority achieves that balance remarkably well.
	Although the Broads Authority is not a national park in the legal sense because it was not designated through the procedure outlined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, it has an equivalent status, and it is a much valued member of the national parks family, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) so eloquently stated earlier. I can assure the House that the broads will not be changing their name. It is important that we continue to recognise their distinct status by giving them a distinct title.
	Incorporating the words "national park" and "national park authority" in the names would wrongly imply that it was a standard national park and authority, exactly like the others. That is because national park authorities have two purposes—conservation and recreation. In cases of conflict, greater weight is always given to conservation, under the Sandford principle as enshrined in the Environment Act 1995. In the case of the broads, there is the third purpose—to protect the interests of navigation. We have heard much about the interests of navigation this afternoon. It is fundamental that we recognise that to introduce the Sandford principle would jeopardise the interests of navigation.
	Each of the authority's purposes is equally important. Hence the Sandford principle cannot apply, and it would be inappropriate for the Broads Authority to call itself a national park. But that does not make the broads in any way inferior—or, indeed, superior—to a national park.
	Concerns have been expressed about the amount of dredging that takes place in the broads. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) dealt extensively with that in his remarks. Some people consider that more dredging should take place. Although I welcome the implication that boaters are willing to pay more to navigate, the Broads Authority must strike a balance between the water depths that some users would like and the level of tolls that can be charged without driving boats off the system. The recently produced sediment management strategy and action plan provide a framework for the authority to manage its dredging responsibilities in the future.
	The national parks and the broads are our "jewels in the crown". They contain some of the most celebrated and iconic scenery and cover about 8 per cent. of the landscape. In 2005 the Landscape Institute voted the national park movement the greatest beneficial influence on the UK's landscape in the past 75 years, so I am not surprised that any proposed changes to one of our internationally renowned assets should have generated such debate. However, I can assure the House that the proposed changes in the Bill make the broads a safer place. I commend the Bill to the House and I hope hon. Members will let it go forward to Committee.
	I want to pick up on several points raised by hon. Members in the course of the debate. The hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Mid-Norfolk and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) talked particularly about parish representation. The Broads Authority has never included parish council representatives. It is reducing, at its own request, to 21 members. Nine are serving elected members from local authorities in the broads area, who might be reluctant to cede their seats to parish members; two are members of the navigation committee and therefore have their own incredibly important expertise in the context of the broads; 10 are appointed on the basis of open public competition and, vitally, represent our national interest in the broads. Those three groupings combine to make a very strong team. The national park authority performance assessment on the broads in 2005 commented that the organisation had made considerable strides in terms of strategy, planning and stakeholder buy-in, and that it should achieve considerable success in the future.
	Of course, national appointments are open to all. If parish members wish to serve on the Broads Authority, they can always apply under the open competition that is available for those 10 appointed places. Several varying interests are represented on the authority at present. I will not name individuals, but if I allude to the range of expertise and experience that is represented, that will give the House an understanding of how important it is to have that variety of expertise available. We have a retired chief constable, a member of the National Farmers Union, a member of the Country Land and Business Association, a director of the Camping and Caravanning Club, and a magistrate. There are people with environmental and conservation expertise, as well as navigation expertise. By and large, the current structure works tremendously well.

Ian Gibson: I shall be as brief as possible. It is heartwarming to see so many Members here to debate a measure that I think will make a big difference to many lives. We may not be happy with every aspect of it, but in general we are agree that people should be able to visit the broads, that beautiful part of the world, safely and enjoyably.
	There has been full consultation about the transfer of the Breydon water and the lower Bure to the Broads Authority, and the authority has put in a great deal of background work, talking to organisations and so forth. For instance, it reached an agreement with Great Yarmouth port authority on the potential transfer of responsibility for navigation. No doubt that took a long time, but it happened, and it is now in the Bill. As for powers to enter adjacent waters, there have been a few problems with access, but there has been agreement following full consultation with the National Farmers Union. I have been assured that those agreements will be legally binding as soon as the Bill has been passed, although I hope that we will examine the details in Committee.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). The Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to iterate the points that he made so eloquently, but only to reinforce some of the personal comments that I have heard over the past few weeks about this issue.
	From time to time, I have the privilege of being able to conduct people around Parliament, particularly constituents, and I am constantly appalled as an historian by how few of my Newark constituents understand that the practice of parliamentary democracy as we understand it in this country springs, at least in part, from events in the 17th century in Newark. Were it not for the stand that King Charles took three times against the parliamentarians, the parliamentarians' victory at Newark, and the King's abdication and subsequent execution we would not be doing what we are doing today. It worries me that schoolchildren from my constituency rarely understand that. It worries me even more that their understanding of history and, to be horribly parochial, of the Roman civilisation at the important Trent crossing-point at Newark, is even vaguer.
	As I said, I am an historian. My son hopes to be a classicist. He is 15 years old, and he hopes to take an ancient history A-level so that he can prepare to go on to read classics at university. I had the pleasure, therefore, on Sunday of speaking to his classics master, Dr. Stephen Anderson, who is head of classics at Winchester college, and I made the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks has made very clearly today. Dr. Anderson is a man of deep learning, and he heads what, I think, is one of the most distinguished classics departments in the country. He aims to pitch the teaching of his boys so that they can go to the great universities to read the great subjects that comprise classics, which will prepare them in the broadest possible sense for the professions and careers that they will follow. His great disappointment is that the enthusiastic ambition of boys younger than my son who are coming forward to study the subject will simply not be fulfilled because it is about to disappear, without any consultation worthy of note, exactly as my hon. Friend said.
	Extraordinary comments have been made about the proposal. I have mentioned the head of classics at Winchester, but Graham Able, head of Dulwich college, said that it reinforces his decision to opt out of the entire A-level system in favour of the new pre-U examination. He said:
	"Ancient history is a bona fide academic subject in its own right whereas Classical Civilisation tends to be a watered-down version with less historical rigour."
	I find it difficult to understand how ancient history, the syllabus for which covers 21 different aspects and eras of ancient Greek and Roman history such as the conflict of Greece and Persia in 499 to 479 BC and the reign of Nero, can be moved into the classical civilisation A-level, in which history, as my hon. Friend said, is dealt with in a series of units such as Romano-British society and history as depicted in the literature and archaeological record. How could we begin to understand the history of the first world war if all that was available to us as primary sources was the poetry? It is the work of distinguished and noble poets but, nevertheless, it does not provide a proper, thorough and rigorous historical understanding of the era in which so many kids are interested.
	That brings me to a popular aspect of the A-level. What the films, "Zulu" and "Zulu Dawn", did for mid-19th-century British history, many recent blockbusters have done for ancient history. In my experience and from listening to what my hon. Friend has just said, it is apparent that more and more young men—it is principally young men, but there is a very encouraging number of young women—wish to study that desperately important subject. I suggest that it has been dumbed down, as there has not been any consultation, and very few people who are in a position to influence the syllabuses have been talked to in detail. That is a high-handed approach by the OCR, and it will leave many youngsters disappointed and frustrated, and many masters, dons and professors absolutely furious at the blunt, thoughtless and ignorant conduct of an examination board that has not been properly supervised.
	I know the Minister well. He is a highly educated and extremely reasonable man, but please may we have a re-examination of the decision? I believe that ancient history is a superlative and deeply important subject. If we are to maintain our great schools and universities, this important qualification must be kept on the books.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend says that "300" is very good. I know that it has caused a passionate debate in Iran, which shows how seriously that country takes ancient civilisation. On reflection, that also shows that by understanding ancient civilisation we can understand some of the passions currently being expressed in the middle east.
	Jennifer Harris goes on to state that getting into summer schools for university ancient history courses requires much advanced preparation. Speaking about a summer school in ancient Greek at Reading university, she says that she was
	"strongly encouraged to apply early due to competition for places."
	That shows that ancient history is a subject that is growing in popularity. She then points out:
	"There will inevitably be a negative effect on university intake, as fewer people are in a position to apply for or know about ancient history degrees."
	If we cut off the supply of people reading the subject at university, we will also cut off the supply of academic expertise in the longer term. That is another damaging effect stemming from the decision.
	Miss Harris makes her most important point when she writes:
	"Athenian democracy, the Roman republic and empire, the battle of Thermopylae, the rebellion of Spartacus: all these were covered in the Ancient History syllabus, soon to disappear from schools. The politics and events of the ancient world have proved that they can never become irrelevant. The fact that these are 'dead' civilisations makes if anything a positive difference: as T.S. Eliot said, 'through their death we have come into our inheritance'."
	That is the point: what we enjoy today is built on those foundations. If we do not understand them, we risk losing something tremendously important and valuable.
	My daughter Rosanna took her ancient history A-level four years ago. She intervened in my busy working day today to lobby me hard on this subject. Her point was that the study of ancient history is not just another A-level subject, but is rooted in proper historical method. It is a history course, first and foremost: the subject may be ancient, but the course is about the historical method, which is a tremendously academic discipline in its own right.
	I have come across a website compiled by a young man who has been commenting adversely on the proposal. He has said that ancient civilisations offer a more attractive, interesting and vibrant way to study historical method than more modern civilisations. We are understandably obsessed with the Nazis and more recent events, but the events of the ancient civilisations are more compelling, fascinating, and powerful. They therefore provide a greater incentive for students to study the historical method. We are losing not just ancient history, but, more generally, a whole tranche of historians and all that they bring to our society.
	My daughter points out that she learned not only history, but politics with huge relevance to modern politics. She learned about art, architecture and literature. She also learned about geography, because an understanding of the geography of Gaul is tremendously important when studying the difficulties of Julius Caesar in de Bello Gallico. She said that the course was her grounding for life, which I respect.
	A document on the OCR website describes the aims of the course in language that is every bit as persuasive and passionate as that used by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks. The words in the document are the justification for continuing the course. The document makes the points about historical method that I have already made and then says:
	"The study of Ancient History in these specifications contributes to an understanding of spiritual, moral, ethical, social and cultural issues by ... requiring the study of societies and cultures that are alien to the student's own, and of their moral and ethical values and religious beliefs ... promoting awareness of aspects of human life other than the physical and material—
	how important that is—
	"encouraging insight into the context in which men and women have displayed outstanding creativity ... revealing the moral and ethical issues involved in acts of war and violence, and underlining the responsibility of individuals and societies for such acts".
	The document also says that understanding is developed by
	"investigating techniques of persuasion and the way in which moral and ethical issues may become obscured in political argument"—
	there are many shades of our modern political debates in these justifications—
	"giving students the opportunity to become acquainted with the deep analyses of individual human behaviour and of the behaviour of human societies offered by"
	a variety of historians and poets, and
	"fostering understanding of the difficulty of applying notions of 'proof' or 'certainty' to the study of past events, and of the provisional nature of historical judgements".
	The document thus sets out a powerful list of reasons to keep this intellectually demanding and rigorous course, which is flourishing in the modern world, alive and well.
	However, interestingly, and perhaps more controversially to my hon. Friends, the killer argument is made in paragraph 2.2 of the document, which is titled "The European Dimension". I will quote the passage at length because it makes the point better than I would by paraphrasing it:
	"The achievements of the Greeks and the Romans provide the foundation upon which the modern European world is built, and the culture of Europe has been in continuous dialogue with the culture of ancient Greece and Rome since antiquity. The Roman Empire provided a model of a united Europe which profoundly influenced subsequent European history and which continues to influence European fears and aspirations today. An understanding of Greek and Roman history is basic"—
	I emphasise the word "basic"—
	"to a proper understanding of modern Europe. The European dimension therefore pervades these specifications."
	Those are not my words or those of the people who have lobbied me—my daughter and constituent—or my hon. Friends, but the words of the examination board that intends to abolish the subject.
	I echo the pleas of my hon. Friends to the Minister. I ask him please to talk to the QCA and the examination board and to use all his powers to persuade them that this is a serious error of judgment that will have profound and serious consequences for the long-term future understanding of what we are. The words of T.S. Eliot are powerful and should be heard by the examination board:
	"through their death we have come into our inheritance".

Jim Knight: The popularity of those films demonstrates the public's abiding interest in ancient history. Some people are even prepared to suffer less successful epics such as "Troy", or even "Alexander", which I thought a fairly execrable effort, in the interests of soaking up the classics. Popular writers such as David Gemmell are engaging new generations with fictionalised versions of the period, so the issue is certainly important.
	More broadly, all periods of history continue to inspire and attract young people to study the subject, not only to gain knowledge and understanding of our past, but also to acquire the essential skills that history offers. They range from the ability to analyse evidence and test its validity, to the ability to persuade and write critically, often instilling in young people a healthy scepticism as well as a sense of awe about human achievement and progress. That is even before we reflect on the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire about understanding present-day Europe—I am sure he will be recommending the study of ancient history to all his party colleagues.
	Although we do not have specific data on entrants to ancient history degrees, the number of 18-year-olds choosing a history degree has gone up by more than 13 per cent. since 2002. That interest and enthusiasm is replicated in schools and colleges, as we have heard. History A-level is the sixth most popular choice, with more than 40,000 candidates in 2006. In the same year, more than 200,000 young people chose a history GCSE.
	Nevertheless, when we compare that overwhelming enthusiasm with the figures for ancient history A-level, the picture in terms of numbers is not so rosy. In fact, only 424 students chose that option last year, but there has been growth. I have seen claims of a 300 per cent. increase in ancient history candidates since 2000, but we need to be careful not to double-count candidates in year 12 who are taking their AS exams. I am advised that, according to our figures, the like-for-like increase since 2000 is nearer 9 per cent. However, it is an increase, and an important one. I realise the popularity of the subject in some sixth-form and further education colleges, such as Queen Mary's college, Basingstoke—a fine establishment where I once worked. I was pleased to revisit the college earlier this year to open a new maths and art block, when I was reacquainted with an old friend, Tom Pearson, the head of history to whom the hon. Member for Sevenoaks referred, and who subsequently e-mailed me to lobby me about the issue and, indeed, was the first person to raise it with me.
	With that in mind, and as part of the ongoing overhaul of A-levels, the awarding body, OCR, is, as we have heard, proposing to redesign the suite of qualifications it offers in classics. However, I stress that the discontinuation of ancient history is only a proposal, not a foregone conclusion—[Hon. Members: "Ah."] OCR is consulting the QCA about the matter at present, so this is exactly the right time to raise concerns in the House with OCR and the QCA.
	As Members are aware, awarding bodies such as OCR are independent organisations regulated by the QCA, so Ministers cannot directly intervene in their decisions, although I hope to offer some comfort as to what I propose to do. Nevertheless, the process of revising the qualifications in classics, involving not only OCR and the QCA, but also interested stakeholders, will ensure that any changes will not—I hope—have a detrimental impact on provision.
	I shall outline the proposed changes. OCR has proposed four different A-level paths, which it believes will cover the full range of classical studies. Students would be able to follow a subject-specific pathway and gain A-level Latin, classical Greek or classical civilisation, or study units from different pathways and gain an A-level in classics. That last qualification is new and will enable students to study more than one subject area. The distinction between the A-levels in classics and in classical civilisation is that the former would require students to study one of the classical languages.
	Central to those proposals are the principles of greater flexibility for schools and greater choice for students. In that respect, they are very much in tune with the whole package of reforms to education for young people between 14 and 19. Through different combinations of units, students—guided by their teachers, of course—can put together a programme that appeals to their particular interests, focusing on anything from archaeology through to history and to culture. Alternatively, they can look more broadly across the themes without specialising. I am sure that hon. Members who are sitting up and looking with such interest might well argue that ancient history should be part of that mix, and I am sure that they will pursue that argument.
	Looking at the proposed course content, I can assure the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that there would be an opportunity for those students attracted to the more popular elements of ancient history to pursue their interest within the different pathways that I have outlined. For example, there is a unit covering the Greek historians Thucydides, Herodotus and Plutarch. Another unit, "City Life in Roman Italy" looks at the cities of Pompeii, Herculaneum and Ostia. Yet another looks at Roman Britain and would cover, for example, the invasions of Caesar and Claudius, Boudicca's rebellion and the Hadrian and Antonine walls.
	Part of the rationale for the reforms, I am advised, is to attract increasing numbers of students to the classics. Because of the greater choice and flexibility that I talked about, young people would be able either to focus on their particular interest, such as the elements of ancient history that are retained, or to cover a broader range of topics. But, like the hon. Gentleman, I want to be assured that opportunities to study ancient history are preserved and that those changes will achieve the right balance between attracting new candidates and preserving the credibility and quality of the qualification. I know that that concern is shared by the OCR and the QCA.
	Since OCR made these proposals to the QCA at the end of March, the QCA will now be considering whether any amendments should be made before it accredits them. OCR, too, will be listening to feedback—I am sure that it will be listening to the comments in our useful debate—and is likely to put forward its own amendments. While it is clear that the proposed changes that I have outlined cover ancient history to some extent, I want OCR and the QCA to look very carefully at whether that is sufficient. I am therefore encouraged to hear—as, I am sure, will be the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—that OCR is seriously considering whether it would be appropriate to reinstate ancient history as a title. I would call on OCR and the QCA to make sure that the views of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are recognised in their ongoing discussions to resolve the issue.
	I will write, as requested, to those bodies to draw attention to the points made in our debate. Indeed, I am happy to facilitate a meeting between the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friends, myself and the QCA to discuss the matter and see whether more can be done on this important subject.
	In conclusion, although Conservative Members and I may not have reached the perfect heights of Socratic dialogue today, the very fact that we are here exemplifies the democratic principles established in Athens and continued down to this day. The importance of those early civilisations cannot be over-emphasised and it is essential that young people today have the opportunity to study the themes, institutions and people from the ancient world, all of which have helped to shape our modern world.
	I am certain that OCR and the QCA will resolve this question in a way that meets the needs of future students by ensuring that the qualifications offered cover a comprehensive and rigorous curriculum. I am hopeful that their solution will attract more students to this important subject. If, in doing so, we can satisfy all Members, as well as the wider classics community, on the subject of the future of the teaching of classics, I would be absolutely delighted.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Seven o'clock.